4 ms·
Again, you're trusting something that isn't yours. In this case you're trusting the state's server.
by lessnonymous 13y ago
Again, you're trusting something that isn't yours. In this case you're trusting the state's server.
- Spooky23 13y agoYou're looking for a unicorn. There isn't a convenient way to have a third-party deliver something to someone without knowledge of where that thing is going. If you need a trusted chain of custody for whatever you're moving, than you need to build that infrastructure (as in the example I provided previously). If you need the ability to securely communicate outside of a secure infrastructure, there are various ways to do that (bank-style, ssl-secured messaging centers, PGP, S/MIME, etc). Anonymity is a separate problem. Spies use techniques like dead drops. The boss in "The Godfather" didn't use the phone. Corporate executives use PIN-to-PIN blackberry messaging and swap phones periodically.
- SolarNet 13y agoBut in this case the you that's worried about security is the social security administration for the state. The real problem with the argument is that it's hard for people to set up their own secure mail servers, but organizations, like in this example, can do it decently well.